Leaderboard

@PeterthePapercomPoser Thank you for your comments. Regarding the repetition of sequences, I know that the usual is to stay in 3 or 4...., maybe that's why I continued. Why not? Somehow, it is a vehicle to get somewhere. The polyrhythmic part, yes, surely it is more legible for the ensemble of an orchestra as you say, but well, since I am not a professional composer nor do I pretend this will ever be played, what I was interested in was to explore polyrhythm in a descriptive (for me) way. Well, it's obvious that everyone has their own points of view. Regarding the 12/8 section I totally agree with you and I think it is a pastiche. Those were other times and now I wouldn't do it like that. But it is always very difficult for me to go over things and change them, I prefer to write again. Regards.

This certainly starts like a love song, but the picture of you in the video makes me think it's tragic or unrequited. The music also has a tragic flavor to it except for that long string of sequences at B1 and B2 which sound quite hopeful. Although I'd usually stop a repeating sequence at 3, maybe 4 repetitions. But you have 5 which seems a little excessive. The polyrhythmic section at C1 is interesting, but how do you expect the players to count that and get it together? It seems like maybe it would have been more logical to set the meters at 7/8 and 5/4 with the way it's written. Then, if the conductor conducts 7/8 all the players would have to learn is the 5 against 7 polyrhythm which is something that is teachable. I think the 7/8 section is quite lovely and reminds me of John Williams' "Minority Report" score. But the 12/8 section doesn't really fit the vibe of being a love song imo. Starting at measure 40 it starts sounding more like an exercise. Those are my thoughts. Thanks for sharing this delicate piece!

Ok--- Click-bait! Overrated: 1. Brahms: "The 3 B's"? Really? Bach, Beethoven and BRAHMS? Reading swafford's bio. Yes, a great craftsman. yes, conservative tastes. But.... ******************BOOOOOORING. 2. Bruckner: I actually enjoy the 4th, 7th...but that is not saying he could use an editor. And now and again it has that Vivaldi feeling like he wrote the same symphony 9 times. Seriously. 3. Telemann: Capable. Rarely profound. 4. Liszt: Great Pianist. Not a great composer. Used Joachim Raff to orchestrate a lot of music, before Raff realized he could do his own stuff---and often much better.... But a good man. That counts for something. Underrated: 1. Mendelssohn: (I pretty much had to list him!) The guy wrote what has been called "The perfect symphony"--the Italian--and the Scottish. The violin concerto. A Midsummernight's Dream Overture, The Hebrides overture, 6 excellent string quartets, 2 masterpiece piano trios, the Octet, a significant and exceptional organ repoirtoire, some fine piano music, a masterful violin sonata (the F minor--supressed unitl Menhuin brought it to light in the 1950s) Much of his juvenialia is exceptional as well---the piano quartets, the later string symphonies (At age 12??? REALLY?) Meanwhile, he basically established the core of the standard repoitoire as a conductor, revitalized Bach, and formed the Liepzig Music Conservatory that exists today. Many historians point to his many organizing and playing/conducting duties as sapping his energies and denying us even more masterpieces in his short, productive life. 2. Zelenka-- Far better than Vivaldi, Telemann, and any of a dozen other Baroque hacks--Zelenka wrote counterpoint on par with Bach and was a friend of his. Interesting composing sense. 3. Joachim Raff: Promoted by Mendelssohn, employed by Liszt, and considered the preeminent symphonist in the 1870s 80s, he suffered from living TOO LONG and writing TOO MUCH. Fine compositions in all genres except Opera, I do believe. 4. Ferdinand Ries: Beethoven's student and aide: Wrote fine piano music, Piano quartets, trios, string quartets, concetos and symphonies..Well respected and widely known from 1800 to his death around 1840. Some really excellent stuff. I find he clearly has his own musical voice. I'll leave it at 4. I will say that I storngly disagree that Haydn was equal to Mozart. Haydn himself recognized Mozart's superiority. Haydn was brilliant, and creative, establishing the symphony, string quartet, and evolved over his long life, but he was no Mozart, and his music lacks the grace and intricacy that Mozart could spin off at will.